MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
- Thread starter munson15
- Start date
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
Not trying to weasel out of losses, but I read the info again, and realized some errors on my part in yesterday's post. I apologize to anyone who tailed on bad info, I'm doing my best. BALTIMORE (L) was a no-play due to their starter making his first ML start. detroit (W) was no-play due to not being available at underdog price. SANFRANCISCO (L) was no play due to their starter making his ML debut. seattle (L) was no play due to Rasner of the Yankees not meeting the innings qualifications.
Again, sorry for the confusion, I thought I had the rules down, but both pitchers must qualify for the system to be a go, and I was on BALTIMORE, SANFRANCISCO, and passed on seattle (don't play against my own team). Couldn't get the price on detroit so that was a pass too.
Not trying to weasel out of losses, but I read the info again, and realized some errors on my part in yesterday's post. I apologize to anyone who tailed on bad info, I'm doing my best. BALTIMORE (L) was a no-play due to their starter making his first ML start. detroit (W) was no-play due to not being available at underdog price. SANFRANCISCO (L) was no play due to their starter making his ML debut. seattle (L) was no play due to Rasner of the Yankees not meeting the innings qualifications.
Again, sorry for the confusion, I thought I had the rules down, but both pitchers must qualify for the system to be a go, and I was on BALTIMORE, SANFRANCISCO, and passed on seattle (don't play against my own team). Couldn't get the price on detroit so that was a pass too.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
I know it's cheesy, but the Sunday plays that SHOULD have been called were 2-1, +1.32 units. Again, I don't think anyone gives a shit how much I win or lose, but how much this particular system wins or loses when following all the rules. Total results, 7-7, +1.04 units.
I know it's cheesy, but the Sunday plays that SHOULD have been called were 2-1, +1.32 units. Again, I don't think anyone gives a shit how much I win or lose, but how much this particular system wins or loses when following all the rules. Total results, 7-7, +1.04 units.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
You're right! Sorry I haven't been in touch, my home email got all screwed up because adelphia changed to comcast, and I think I screwed up the conversion, and my work computer was down today! Please keep in touch, and I'll continue to look for you here and across the street.:cheers
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
I'll have time to answer tonight. Thanks for the questions. I am trying to clarify the rules w/ a guru of this system. It has to do w/ inactivity on the part of the pitchers involved. Since the reasons are not the same in each instance you guys mentioned, I need more time to explain.
I'll have time to answer tonight. Thanks for the questions. I am trying to clarify the rules w/ a guru of this system. It has to do w/ inactivity on the part of the pitchers involved. Since the reasons are not the same in each instance you guys mentioned, I need more time to explain.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
SANFRANCISCO was favored when I looked at the lines. You must have seen an overnight that had the mets favored, is my guess.
tampabay was no play because Guthrie was a non-qualified starter under the systems rules, i.e. a spot starter that had not pitched 10+ innings in the last 2 weeks.
chicago (AL) I think I goofed on, the only explanation I can come up w/ is that I didn't see a + number on them when I checked, but a total brain fart is a possibility, too. If so, I apologize. I'm trying to use widely available numbers to post but if I missed a dog line on them, my bad.
For cleveland, Lee has not made 3 starts for the season and therefore doesn't qualify under the system's pitching rules. I hope that covers today's action, I'll address yesterday's in a bit. Thanks for your interest.:cheers
OK, eman, let's address those concerns one at a time. CINCINNATI we agree was a play.
SANFRANCISCO was favored when I looked at the lines. You must have seen an overnight that had the mets favored, is my guess.
tampabay was no play because Guthrie was a non-qualified starter under the systems rules, i.e. a spot starter that had not pitched 10+ innings in the last 2 weeks.
chicago (AL) I think I goofed on, the only explanation I can come up w/ is that I didn't see a + number on them when I checked, but a total brain fart is a possibility, too. If so, I apologize. I'm trying to use widely available numbers to post but if I missed a dog line on them, my bad.
For cleveland, Lee has not made 3 starts for the season and therefore doesn't qualify under the system's pitching rules. I hope that covers today's action, I'll address yesterday's in a bit. Thanks for your interest.:cheers
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
FLORIDA was no play due to facing Penny who is a top 24 pitcher in the NL.
BALTIMORE was a little subjective, but not really, which I know is not what you want to hear. Carmona was ranked, but was a little below the innings threshold. I decided to pass because Carmona had he qualified for ERA would be top 21, and if he didn't based on inactivity, would be a no-play also.
I'm trying to nail down some more details so it's more cut and dried, but there are some loose ends in my understanding of the system's pitching tenets. I will post any additional information I get, and try my best to put up the plays as they present themselves. Any advice or criticism is welcomed.:cheers
OK, sandiego and colorado we agreed on, and they both won.
FLORIDA was no play due to facing Penny who is a top 24 pitcher in the NL.
BALTIMORE was a little subjective, but not really, which I know is not what you want to hear. Carmona was ranked, but was a little below the innings threshold. I decided to pass because Carmona had he qualified for ERA would be top 21, and if he didn't based on inactivity, would be a no-play also.
I'm trying to nail down some more details so it's more cut and dried, but there are some loose ends in my understanding of the system's pitching tenets. I will post any additional information I get, and try my best to put up the plays as they present themselves. Any advice or criticism is welcomed.:cheers
eman
EOG Senior Member
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
It is a great feeling to be glued to the TV on a nightly basis watching them. I am excited but still reserved because all it will take is a big losing streak to knock them down. 23-10 is a great record and the 6 1/2 game lead is awesome.
I have the plays for today but will wait to see what you have come up with to see if we agree.
It is a great feeling to be glued to the TV on a nightly basis watching them. I am excited but still reserved because all it will take is a big losing streak to knock them down. 23-10 is a great record and the 6 1/2 game lead is awesome.
I have the plays for today but will wait to see what you have come up with to see if we agree.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
Excellent, I may take a little longer because I'm busy here at work. The only negative to the Brewers' start is that they haven't beaten too many teams w/ winning records. But they look very good. And I'm holding a pretty decent WS ticket on them.:cheers
Excellent, I may take a little longer because I'm busy here at work. The only negative to the Brewers' start is that they haven't beaten too many teams w/ winning records. But they look very good. And I'm holding a pretty decent WS ticket on them.:cheers
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
Total, 9-10, +0.36 units.
Wednesday drew dogs-
colorado +135
losangeles(NL) +123
sandiego +145
tampabay +128
cleveland +120
I personally won't play the sandiego game because although he falls outside the top 24 NL pitcher ratings, Smoltz is an ace, and I think he shouldn't be faded.
eman, let me know how these look.
Total, 9-10, +0.36 units.
Wednesday drew dogs-
colorado +135
losangeles(NL) +123
sandiego +145
tampabay +128
cleveland +120
I personally won't play the sandiego game because although he falls outside the top 24 NL pitcher ratings, Smoltz is an ace, and I think he shouldn't be faded.
eman, let me know how these look.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
I saw posts elsewhere that stated that the 'under' system was not performing well, so I've been ignoring it. Do you have any results? If it's holding up, maybe you could start another thread and post those?
I'm glad we're on the same page today on the underdogs. Thanks.
I saw posts elsewhere that stated that the 'under' system was not performing well, so I've been ignoring it. Do you have any results? If it's holding up, maybe you could start another thread and post those?
I'm glad we're on the same page today on the underdogs. Thanks.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
I think the same rules apply to pitchers under the O/U system as the dog system, so you probably started at the correct point.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
I played the Cub-Pirate under. Thanks for the headsup, I was thinking about it because of the 15 inning game, but your post put that bet on my front burner.:cheers The other one looks good right now, too. Hope you got them both.
munson15
I want winners...
Re: MUNSON'S SEASON UNDERDOGS
Friday Dogs.
chicago(NL) +110
cincinnati +117
OAKLAND +125
atlanta is a pick'em, left them off. milwaukee opposes a non-qualifying pitcher. COLORADO faces another non-qualifer. Webb is 25th, right behind a guy who's ERA is over 5, so I passed on HOUSTON. Lackey is too good and just out of the top 21 in the AL, so although TEXAS (+110) by strict definition is a play, I'll pass there, too. Finally, the Yanks' Rasner doesn't qualify either, so no action on SEATTLE. Hope that explains the card.
Friday Dogs.
chicago(NL) +110
cincinnati +117
OAKLAND +125
atlanta is a pick'em, left them off. milwaukee opposes a non-qualifying pitcher. COLORADO faces another non-qualifer. Webb is 25th, right behind a guy who's ERA is over 5, so I passed on HOUSTON. Lackey is too good and just out of the top 21 in the AL, so although TEXAS (+110) by strict definition is a play, I'll pass there, too. Finally, the Yanks' Rasner doesn't qualify either, so no action on SEATTLE. Hope that explains the card.